Despite the offensive in Baqubah continuing to show great signs of both political and military success and other military aspects of the surge also proving that the strategy developed by General Petraeus is doing what it’s supposed to from a military standpoint, the Iraqi government slips deeper into chaos and ennui, negating any possible chance that the American military alone can turn the situation around and bring peace and stability to the country.

The military successes we’ve had are taking place in a political vacuum. The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki continues to wallow in sectarianism, incompetence, corruption, and a curious lethargy when it comes to addressing the issues that absolutely must be addressed if Iraq is to have a chance at internal peace. To wit:

A boycott of the cabinet by Sunni ministers shows no sign of being resolved. In fact, it appears that very little effort is being made by the Shias to entice the Sunnis back into the government although it is understood that American diplomats are working frantically behind the scenes to get the parties back together.

The Parliament is paralyzed. With 74 members boycotting the proceedings coupled with the usual bunch who don’t bother to show up anyway, it becomes impossible to gather a quorum so that official business can be conducted.

For every step forward, two steps back are the result. While the New York Times is reporting that a moderate group of Shias, Sunnis, and Kurds appear ready to begin working on the oil revenue sharing legislation in order to try and shepherd the bill through parliament, the largest Sunni bloc is still opposing the bill making passage a moot point. Why pass a bill the majority of Sunnis won’t support? It’s just one more indication that the Shias intend on riding roughshod over the political rights of the Sunnis.

And if that weren’t bad enough, Muqtada al-Sadr has joined with some Sunnis and Kurds to oppose the oil legislation anyway. Mookie knows full well that if the oil bill passes, Bush can claim political progress in Iraq and stop the momentum towards withdrawal.

Nearly 20 people a day are still being found in Baghdad who have been executed as a result of the sectarian violence roiling the city and its suburbs. This is half the number that was found in February. But sectarian deaths elsewhere are up and the violence appears to be spreading into formerly peaceful northern provinces, especially around Kirkuk where Kurds and Shias are carrying on a low level conflict over control of that vital oil center.

There is no sign of any mass movement by internal refugees back to the city to reclaim their formerly mixed neighborhoods despite incentives offered by the government. In fact, more people are leaving the country. Both Jordan and Syria are thinking of severely limiting the number of refugees from Iraq.

As competent and bravely as our military has performed, there is little they can do to affect any of these problems. Yes, they can reduce the violence. But can they change what’s in the hearts and minds of the purveyors of this mayhem? Simply keeping the murderers off the streets is not solving the problem in any lasting way. This is a job for the Iraqi people and their elected government.

We can kill al-Qaeda. We can build effective bridges to the Sunni community. We can keep the militias from causing too much trouble by keeping them off the streets. We can keep raiding insurgent strongholds and confiscating weapons and bomb making materials. We can keep building infrastructure and reaching out to the Iraqi people. But this is not a permanent solution to Iraq’s problems. The surge is not designed to permanently solve Iraq’s security problems. It was designed to lower the level of violence so that the Iraqi government could get its act together and start the long, hard, slog toward building a peaceful, democratic society. We are doing more than our part. But the Iraqi government is failing miserably in holding up their end of the bargain.

Realizing this, Republican Senators are finally abandoning Bush and calling for a change in mission. The latest apostate is Senator Pete Domenici:

White House efforts to keep congressional Republicans united over the Iraq war suffered another major defection yesterday as Sen. Pete V. Domenici (N.M.) broke with President Bush and called for an immediate change in U.S. strategy that could end combat operations by spring.

The six-term lawmaker, party loyalist and former staunch war supporter represents one of the most significant GOP losses to date. Speaking to reporters at a news conference in Albuquerque, Domenici said he began to question his stance on Iraq late last month, after several conversations with the family members of dead soldiers from his home state, and as it became clear that Iraqi leaders are making little progress toward national reconciliation.

“We cannot continue asking our troops to sacrifice indefinitely while the Iraqi government is not making measurable progress,” Domenici said. “I do not support an immediate withdrawal from Iraq or a reduction in funding for our troops. But I do support a new strategy that will move our troops out of combat operations and on the path to coming home.”

Domenici becomes the fourth Republican Senator in the last week to come out in favor of a change in mission. He also announced he will sponsor legislation that would “embrace the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group” – a clear sign that Bush’s days of having unfettered control over war policy are numbered.

I and many others predicted that the ISG report would eventually be used by lawmakers as political cover to change the mission in Iraq and start the withdrawal of American combat forces. The question is, can the Administration itself adopt some of the ISG’s recommendations in order to avoid the political and military disaster of being forced to accede to the Democrat’s strategy of set timetables and a much faster draw down of troops?

The answer is no. Bush has pinned his political fortunes on the surge strategy and only Congress can make him give it up. Can Domenici and a few other Republicans craft a compromise that falls short of the Democrat’s draconian plan for withdrawal while still recognizing reality and begin the process of redeploying our troops so that we can start bringing them home?

I think this is more than possible and will probably end up a reality soon enough. And I also believe there are enough GOP House and Senate members who would leap at the chance to support such a compromise to make the measure veto proof. With the American people in favor of such a withdrawal – leaving substantial numbers of troops in place to train the Iraqi army as well as keep killing al-Qaeda – the President will face the stark choice of sticking with a losing hand in Congress or grudgingly accepting the inevitable and working with the leadership to come up with the best plan possible.

That last is probably a non starter. This President has shown a sometimes admirable stubbornness when it comes to sticking to his guns on Iraq. But that same stubbornness has also prevented him from changing course when it could have done a lot more good as well as blinding him to political opportunities to work with the Democrats in order to successfully extricate ourselves from the war.

There are some parts of the ISG that most GOP members would balk at implementing. Surely there would be great opposition to engaging in any kind of dialogue with Syria about Iraq. The gangsters who run that thug nation couldn’t be trusted to keep any agreement. And the fact that Syria continues to try and murder their way back into dominating Lebanon should put the Assad regime beyond the pale of all civilized nations.

Iran may be a different story. While the mullahs have zero incentive to come to any kind of agreement with us about Iraq, they may have other issues where a mutually beneficial dialogue can be initiated. With their economy close to collapse and great unrest among the populace, the Iranians may be in a relatively weak position regarding any bi-lateral talks with us about issues of common concern (except the nuclear issue). There’s a chance that some kind of agreement can be forged – but it is a small chance and may not be worth the effort.

Bush will wait on the interim report that General Petreaus is preparing for September before even contemplating changing course. He has promised the general that much and I think Petreaus deserves it. But I am anxious to see just how realistic Petreaus will make the political section of his report given the attitude of the Iraqi government to date. With calls from senior members of the military for a withdrawal, I wonder if Petreaus will heed those calls or cave in to the Administration instead and play the rosy scenario game with his report. At his confirmation hearing, the General appeared to be pretty much of a straight shooter. I would hope he gives the President a dose of truth from both barrels.

NOTE: Comments are unmoderated. As long as we behave ourselves, they will stay that way.

Bushâ€™s team has reportedly been murmuring for the past six weeks or so about a Baker-Hamilton resurgence and the House actually passed a measure to resurrect the Group back at the end of June. Thereâ€™s no question weâ€™re going to adopt some form of that strategy; the question is whether Bush is going to go along and pretend like he thinks itâ€™s a good idea or if heâ€™ll resist until Congress overrides him and then blame the chaos that follows withdrawal on them. Probably the former â€” I donâ€™t think he could stand to have his war authority diminished the way the latter process would.

Either way, I think the already-dim prospects of a partisan â€œtruceâ€ are finished. The Dems hold the cards. What would they gain?

By: Rick Moran at 8:28 am

48 Responses to “SUCCESS IN A VACUUM”

1

Gregdn Said:
9:29 am

Great article. I feel like it’s 1972 again. Everyday the lightbulb goes on in another politician’s head and he or she realizes that there’s no ‘winning’ to this war.

2

ed Said:
10:54 am

Rick, you speak the truth, plainly and unvarnished on this topic. The most likely scenerio is to not achieve any political solution in Washington, and the current situation limps along until Bush leaves office.

Iraq is a politicized mess, as you point out. The Democrats will be in no mood to compromise with Bush or to give an assist to Republicans in any way. The demonization of the left by the Republicans and the pettiness of Democrats in response will preclude any compromise.

If Bush and Cheney were in charge of Microsoft, its stock would be trading for 84 cents a share. If they were half the manly men they pretend to be, they would resign immediately.

[...] Hard choices need to be made in the near future concerning Iraq. Militarily, both American and Iraqi forces are winning security. However, very little political progress is being made as Rick Moran summerizes. Despite the offensive in Baqubah continuing to show great signs of both political and military success and other military aspects of the surge also proving that the strategy developed by General Petraeus is doing what itâ€™s supposed to from a military standpoint, the Iraqi government slips deeper into chaos and ennui, negating any possible chance that the American military alone can turn the situation around and bring peace and stability to the country. [...]

4

Wramblin' Wreck Said:
1:06 pm

Rick,

I have read your comments now for quite a while and have, in whole, agreed with you about almost everything except leaving Iraq… until now.

This article shows that the US cannot help someone who won’t help themselves first and it is senseless to try (re: New Orleans & Katrina). Therefore we need to leave Iraq to solve its own problems. But that brings up other problems:

a) How to keep the Democrats and media from crowing that they achieved victory over Bush, et. al. I am absoolutely certain that Iraq would be a peaceful democracy iff the Iraqi polititians would do their part;
b) How do you keep the disaster that would happen to Iraq from spreading to the neighboring countries?
c) How long must we wait to pick up the broken pieces of Iraq and begin helping them rebuild their country after the inevitable chaos of the US military leaving?

I would be interested in other people’s thoughts on this. IMO #a & #b are serious concerns that could affect the US for many years to come (see Vietnam ramifications.)

Wramblin’ Wreck

5

Drongo Said:
1:49 pm

“a) How to keep the Democrats and media from crowing that they achieved victory over Bush, et. al. I am absoolutely certain that Iraq would be a peaceful democracy iff the Iraqi polititians would do their part;”

Firstly, you’ll have to live with it.

Secondly, the Iraqi politicians are doing their part as much as the US ones. What more do you expect?

“b) How do you keep the disaster that would happen to Iraq from spreading to the neighboring countries?”

Honestly, no idea. I doubt that you can do much except support the surrounding countries in whatever way they ask.

“c) How long must we wait to pick up the broken pieces of Iraq and begin helping them rebuild their country after the inevitable chaos of the US military leaving?”

Don’t help them. When they get back on an even keel they are quite caoable of putting their country back together again.

6

Rick Moran Said:
1:52 pm

I am not unconvinced (how about that for straddling!) that a large enough residual force in Iraq won’t help keep the lid on violence spilling over into the Middle East in general. I have no idea what that number would be but the key will be to keep Iran from openly meddling in Iraq. And a big enough tripwire would deter them from that.

7

Tano Said:
2:35 pm

If you had written this exact article six months ago, or a year ago, you would have been castigated by your RW colleagues as a traitor, and an appeaser, and been tarred and feathered.

I guess it is the fate of conservatives to inhabit the caboose of our political evolutionary train, but it is good to see that, at the end of the day, the caboose actually moves as far as the rest of the train.

One serious dipute with your comments though. The resistance to engagement with the Syrians is rather strange. The argument that their behavior puts them beyond the pale seems rather beside the point. Is their behavior worse than that of the old Soviet Union? Did St. Ronnie have any problem understanding that dialogue with ones enemies is in the interests of the nation>

8

Gregdn Said:
2:37 pm

If Muslims continue to kill each other after we leave Iraq that’s their problem. We need to focus on the two strategic interests we have over there- oil and Israel. I think they’ll continue to sell us oil, and I really think Israel can take care of itself.
Wramblin’ Wreck: how many soldiers have to die so that you don’t admit the Dems might have been right?

9

Rick Moran Said:
2:44 pm

Tano:

First of all, welcome back and F**k you.

I’ve been basically saying the same thing since last summer although not quite as clearly since my position on the war underwent a thoughtful revision over time. And it galls me to no end to lose 40% of my readership for it and then have some god damned asshole lefty lickspittle like you come here and tell me I’m a jonhnny come lately.

Well, again. F**k you. Your smarmy, snide comments written with an air of insufferable superiority are not welcome here. Go away and never come back.

I always found it ironic that this site is called Rightwing Nuthouse when in reality it provides views from the right that actually make sense.

11

Rick Moran Said:
2:48 pm

Tano is a provacatuer. He is not a serious person. His shallow, thoughtless, hyper partisan comments are as vapid and empty of coherence as any that have ever been left here.

Ignore him.

12

Wramblin' Wreck Said:
3:55 pm

Gregdn,

“how many soldiers have to die so that you donâ€™t admit the Dems might have been right?”

I do NOT admit that the Democrats have the right idea. The vast majority of Iranians are now living a better life with more freedom than they ever experienced under Saddam. True that compared to the US it is still hell, but a lesser hell to be sure.

Also, this war has caused a large number of the Muslim terrorists to gravitate to Iraq where they can be dispatched with a relatively small number of coalition casualities. Compare this war to the casualties in WWII or Korea or even Vietnam. The total coalition casualities to date in this war are less than a single day of WWII. By concentrating the terrorists in a small area like Iraq they can not effectively terrorize other locales such as North America, etc. If we would not have started this war in the first place I truly believe that by now there would have been many more casualities worldwide, INCLUDING AMERICA with civillian women and children counted among those lost.

You may say that there are women and children killed in Iraq anyway so how does it differ? I firmly believe that there are far fewer casualities than under Saddam, especially children, the weak and infirm. How many hundreds of thousands of Saddam’s own subjucts were found in mass graves or were gased?

IMO the main problem is that Bush and his advisors tried to appease the politically correct crowd in the beginning and did not initially fight to win. They just did enough to topple Saddam. The aftermath of that was (to them) unexpected and has caused the problems since that point. If we had gone in, kicked butt hard and not allowed any insurgents at all, it probably would have been over by now. Unpleasant as it may seem, war is meant to be brutal but then so is taking off a bandaid from an arm. It briefly hurts but then is better quickly.

So Gregdn, let me reiterate, I do NOT admit that the Democrat’s position of cut and run is correct. Not now. Not ever. I believe that we need to leave Iraq but ABSOLUTELY NOT for the reasons the Democrats say.

Wramblin’ Wreck

13

tHePeOPle Said:
4:35 pm

I think Tano and Rick Moran are the same person. It’s like Fight Club.

14

Drongo Said:
5:04 pm

“If you had written this exact article six months ago, or a year ago, you would have been castigated by your RW colleagues as a traitor, and an appeaser, and been tarred and feathered.”

That’s ridiculous. Mr Moran has been saying a variation on this theme for well over six months, probably well over a year.

As for the “I spotted it before you did” nonsense, I put it down to little more than degrees of cynicism and pessimism. I tended to think that the big flaw with any Iraqi advanture was going to be what happened afterwards, strongly suspecting an impossible political situation, others hoped that it would work out differently and that people would come together and build something better than what was before because.

It is a crying shame that the pessimists were right, but I think that in some ways the optimists have the better deal in terms of their goodwill towards humanity.

15

Fight4TheRight Said:
5:31 pm

I don’t know if anyone has actually ever noticed the small tattoo that Harry Reid has on his left forearm, but for what it’s worth, it appears to say “Tano.” : )

Now, as to the article and point of view. First off, I’m convinced there is NOTHING the U.S. and Iraqi forces could do in Iraq right now to please any of the surrender goats in America. Nothing. There could be 3 straight weeks of no casualties and no civilian deaths and the WaPo or NYT would find some bodies somewhere, whether it is true or not, they’ll print it.

As for the al-Malicki government and their snail like process in resolving their new country’s issues. Well, I’d point out that there is a country to the West of Iraq which actually just celebrated its 231st birthday – 231 years of “perfecting” a democratically elected government but the amazing part is to review the “progress” of that said Country’s government in the first six months of 2007. I ask you. Which country is 231 years old and which one is 4 years old?

One last point. Rick, you actually believe that by changing direction in Iraq, by drawing down the troops, re-deploying them, whatever you want to call it….you REALLY think that this wave of American sentiment towards the Iraqi War, and the Dems in Congress will allow one single U.S. troop to remain in Iraq? If you really think that, I think you have now lost it. I’ll lay it out.

Initial troop withdrawl: 35,000

Secondary withdrawl from all of Iraq except Baghdad: 75,000

Six months later: Baghdad troops cut in half leaving 20,000 troops. that same month, 28 troop deaths. So, the next month, remaining 20,000 are sent to Kuwait.

1 year later: Iraqi Sunni death count – 435,000

Iraqi Shia death count – 200,000
Iraqi Kurd death count – 50,000

and that’s just a year later, for the death count totals after 2 years, you’ll need a new calculator.

But fair is fair, they had 4 years to get a government up and running to our standards. So, off with their heads, right?

16

Rick Moran Said:
5:39 pm

That scenario you drew was utter nonsense. It’s not based on any known fact or even any intelligent speculation.

And I’m not sure the majority of Democrats are all that willing to draw down our forces that drastically or completely. Some are, most aren’t.

The point, however, is simple. It’s not a question of “abandoning” Iraq. It’s a question of what more good our military can do that the Iraqis cannot do for themselves. And the answer is not too damn much. Right now, we’re more or less in the way of Iraq evolving, in my opinion. We’ve carried them far enough. We’ve done all that we can. Time to concentrate on a mission where we can do some good.

Border patrol comes to mind. The Iranian and Syrian borders are a sieve. And I would still support going after Islamic State of Iraq and any other goons al-Qaeda wishes to send. For that, we’ll need considerable infrastructure but not many troops. But leave the militias and the Sunni insurgents to the Iraqis to sort out.

17

Fight4TheRight Said:
6:06 pm

Well Rick, you can certainly disagree with my scenarios but to call them utter nonsense? Tell me, what were the numbers of civilians killed in VietNam and Cambodia after the U.S. left?

So in answer to your calling my sharings as nonsense, i’d offer up that you have no way of knowing what a domino effect initial withdrawls will create. You, Rick, cannot say for sure there won’t be a resounding plea in America saying,”We’ve decided not to fight so get every SINGLE one of our boys out of there.”

And finally, you can’t tell me with any certainty what the death count in Iraq will be without the presence of U.S. troops and their U.S. commanded Iraqi troops.

Rick, I agree with you on probably 90% of the views you put on this site. I have disagreed with your stance on the Iraqi War from day one but I never left your site – I mean really, can anyone out there name one blog that matches their viewpoint completely? But at the same time, although I used a soft-hearted “slam” of saying “you’ve lost it”, well you calling my points “utter nonsense” and lacking “intelligent speculation” ...well, I’m starting to wonder if 40% have left because of your view on the Iraqi War or perhaps….could it be something else? : )

I ain’t going nowhere, by the way…I enjoy your writing and there’s always those other 9 out of 10 points you make that make me nod in agreement.

18

ed Said:
8:48 pm

“And finally, you canâ€™t tell me with any certainty what the death count in Iraq will be without the presence of U.S. troops and their U.S. commanded Iraqi troops.”

No, but I CAN tell you the number of U.S. troop deaths in Iraq after we leave: 0

For Heaven’s sake, listen to Rick and everyone else with half a brain. The problem in Iraq is political, not amenable to a military solution by U.S. troops. No matter how hard you beat on a feather, it will never work as a nail.

The point, however, is simple. Itâ€™s not a question of â€œabandoningâ€ Iraq. Itâ€™s a question of what more good our military can do that the Iraqis cannot do for themselves. And the answer is not too damn much. Right now, weâ€™re more or less in the way of Iraq evolving, in my opinion. Weâ€™ve carried them far enough. Weâ€™ve done all that we can. Time to concentrate on a mission where we can do some good.

Not so, Rick. The fact is that it is only now that the Iraqi forces are able to carry much of the weight in the heavily disputed areas. They have a way to go but are showing signs of being a competent military force. The question is solely whether creating a secure environment will allow the Iraqi government to progress and solve real issues that are dividing the country.

Simply put: do the Iraqis need to be allowed to descend into a sectarian bloodbath in order to facilitate the type of political compromise required for a sustainable governmental relationship?

And who is going to be the instigator and will Iran be another Vietnam that occupied Cambodia for over a decade in the wake of that killing field?

Yes, the “Surge” is providing a more secure Iraq. Yes, the political leadership is not using this opportunity to create a lasting political unity amongst the Iraqi people. But also, yes, there are other outside influences which must be taken into account.

While the best road to reduced violence throughout the Middle East may be a properly targeted spread of 10KT birds into Tehran the diplomatic road cannot succeed without continued military pressure against Tehran’s puppets. How long does it take for the tribal leaders in Iraq to begin to pressure their national political representatives to begin to cooperate as they themselves have only just now begun to do? How hard must they press to get national political leaders to back away from positions bought and paid for by Iran or Saudi Arabia?

And what is our role in fixing this broken state?

None of which will be properly debated because politicians are reacting to public pressure that is often misinformed. If I only had reports from the AP and other MSM sources I would be far more pessimistic about Iraq. The question should be: If Iraqis have a more secure environment what pressure should be placed on them to make the political progress required for a successful state?

The military and political component cannot be addressed separately. Simply leaving as Murtha and company wants will not spur the Iraqis into political compromise; nor will maintaining the same level of troops, as some Bush supporters want,create the sense of urgency on the Iraq national political leadership. Somehow a rational plan of troop commitment must be emplaced.

However, I suspect that in September of this year Gen. Petraeus will report that while the Surge has created a safer environment the concommittant political reform has not taken place. At that time we will bail out of Iraq and it will become the world’s next Killing Field.

And this time the effects of those Killing Fields on America will be real and lasting.

20

Johnnywalkerred Said:
10:10 pm

I think this just goes to show you that ‘coulda woulda shoulda’ won’t bring back dead Americans who marches into this mess believing that they could make a difference.

I feel for the leaders and kids out there now that are still fighting and still believe they can make a difference, and ARE- but the chaos sewn is too much. The missed opportunities too many to overcome.

That ANYONE on this site backs Bush after this monsterous mismanagement is beyond me.

21

pacificus Said:
10:24 pm

Mr Moran,

I am amazed at how willing you are to give up, esp. since, as was mentioned above, you have been quit on this policy for 6 months or more. Kudos, by the way, for smiting little tano—just a bedwetting commie symp puke who should never venture out from under his rock again.

Four years is just the beginning my friend, and if we don’t convincingly defeat these bastards in Iraq, we’ll just have to do it somewhere else—maybe here.

I think you share the debilitating myopia and foreshortened attention span of those who misunderstand the true threat facing us. Do you really think leaving Iraqis to be butchered, with agents even worse than Saddam and his spawn in control of all that oil is going to smooth things for us later?

Dont forget all those Shia’s in the south and the Kurds in the north that foolishly thought Bush Senior’s word was good when he suggested we would support an uprising against Saddam. We pull this kind of shit too many times and people are going to stop trusting us, even our allies.

22

grognard Said:
12:28 am

I think Rick hit upon an important point, the members of Parliament are acting in their own self interest and not in any national interest. The success of the operations in Anbar was the result of the Tribal leaders and groups like the 1920 Revolutionary Brigades coming together to eliminate Al Qeada. The Tribal leaders in particular were tired of AQ infringing on their time honored rights and privileges, note that Saddam with all of his power did not mess with them. The problem we face now is that these quasi militia groups will not necessarily want to disband after the AQ threat is eliminated, they will want to stay around until they see a national government that respects Sunni rights and ends the Shiite sectarian violence. No political solution and once again we see the specter of the nation breaking apart, with the US caught in the middle.

23

mannning Said:
12:38 am

I haven’t the ghost of an idea what Jack Bauer would do. But I do have some ideas of what we should not do now, and it is along the lines of what I posted here earlier:

1. We should not abandon the Iraqi people completely by running home. Genocide is a real threat to them.
2. We should not abandon the Iraqi government that we have propped up so far.
3. We should not allow Iraq to be taken over by the Iranians and Syrians.
4. We should not allow genocide to take place between the various sects.
5. We should not let the Iraqi oil be captured by the Russians or Chinese.
6. The oil is key to the economic growth of Iraq, and since it seems that they cannot settle its sharing equitably, we should step in there and force an equitable solution, with some payback for us as well.
7. We need to protect the oil infrastructure in Iraq.
8. We need to protect the borders as well at this time.
9. We should not turn our backs on our investment in Iraq in blood and treasure at this time.

It seems obvious to me that we cannot do these things without sufficient force on the ground in Iraq, deployed so as to be available in case of serious bloodshed, and so as to protect the borders and the oil infrastructure. We would still have to be in Baghdad, and several other cities until Iraqi forces can take over. We would still have to train their various forces. We would still have to protect our own supply lines to our forces, and our own bases from attack. We would still have to run continuous recon missions of our own throughout Iraq. I am sure that there is more that needs doing as well.

If these things are valid for us to do, and I believe they are, then we currently do not have enough troop power in Iraq to accomplish all I have suggested, I think.
So rather than withdrawing troops now, it seems to me that we should be augmenting them, while rearranging their deployments inside Iraq to cover the needs suggested above, and also completing the current surge missions as well in Baghdad and surrounds. Many of us have decried the lack of forces adequate to the job since the beginning of our Iraqi adventure. Politically, it is not going to happen, but it is what I would do.

Then the Iraqi government, the various tribes, and the sects can have a relatively unfettered go at solving their governance problems, without the oil question being at issue, except against us. If we are fair with the distribution of profits, that just might buy time for them to settle themselves, before we turn control back to them.

24

Drewsmom Said:
6:27 am

Rick, its been awhile since I posted on your blog, been going thru a really bad time but now everything is going better and I’m posting on you blog and Sistertoljah, two of the very best out there.
This is the way this dumb blonde feels.
It’s time to come home. An Army recriter came by and talked to my 16 year old about intellegence jobs since my son is an absolute geek, this would fit him to a T, either Army or Navy or Air Force intel. Anyway, he let it kinda slip that come Sept. we are gonna start pulling out regardless. I asked him if this was just a fluke so I wouldn’t be scared of MY KID having to go to Iraq and he assured me it was not. Sorry dems, but I do believe our Military when they make statements.
In my humble opinion I’d like to see all the moderate few muslims in Iraq be helped outta the country and the place leveled. Also we need to be assisting the Iranian folks to overthrow the mighty midget wack job of a leader they have and also be helping oust hugo the great.
As I said, I am just a dumb blonde.
Hope you are doing good Rick and I’ll keep coming back stating my opinion.
Bye.
P.S. Unlike Mama sheenut I’d stand by my son if he wishes to go into combat to fight, whatever he wants to do to serve his country is fine with this Mom.

25

Eno Said:
9:17 am

Rick:
I guess we are just going to have to demand that you produce some conservative bana fides again, or you are out of the conspiracy buster

Just kidding.

Another excellent column with (mostly) excellent commentary. I think many of you ignore the rather obvious fact that US military presence in this region has been necessary since the early 1980’s. We have repeatedly had to send in troops for the last 30 years. Sorry johnnywalkerred, I still applaud congress and the president for the initial invasion of Iraq. We have o have a presence in this region. That said, obviously things have gone wrong in a largely successful military effort. I disagree with you argument with fight4theright. Your plans will likely lead to a civil war and bloodbath. Manning and Pacifus make the best points: We cannot leave Iraq under any circumstances. I suspect those complaining about the tragic loss of american lives are the same ones who said that we would lose 20,000 against the vaunted Republican Guards who would lay down their lives for their beloved Saddam.That turned out to be untrue. We must force the Iraqi’s to come to terms with their own destiny. I agree that they may never do that at present troop levels. However, if they refuse to act politically, we should begin to (slowly) draw down troop levels and economic assistance.
P.S. I don’t care about Democrat “crowing”. They have insulted our military repeatedly by claiming they have “lost” a war that is a clearly military victory. I know many men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan. I can’t wait till they return home and begin to vote.

26

Fight4TheRight Said:
2:00 pm

#18 ed said:

” No, but I CAN tell you the number of U.S. troop deaths in Iraq after we leave: 0 ”

Oh, i get it now Ed. Thanks for the clarification.

You know Ed, if we were to call all of the troops home, have them turn in their uniforms, weapons and medals. Then call back all the troops from Korea, Japan, Germany, Philippines, etc. and have them do the same thing…then close all of our bases and shut down every recruiting station, we could probably ensure your goal of ” 0 ” for many years to come!

Name one military action, at this point in time, Ed that you would support other than on American soil. I doubt seriously you would agree to American troops going anywhere in this world.

27

Joe Helgerson Said:
6:18 pm

What the blind neo-cons on this site don’t realize is :you can train Iraqis till your blue in the face, their loyalty to the Maliki government will be iffy at best. Rick gets it people, the military can’t solve political problems. Keeping US troops there is just a holding pattern now. Bush is too stubborn to see his follies there. Only the 08 election coming up changes the GOP senators views. Bush can veto all he wants, soon there will be a veto proof majority slapping him down. The Democrats have been way ahead of the curve on the fiasco in Iraq, finally the GOP is starting to get it. Thank you Dick Lugar

28

Drewsmom Said:
8:27 pm

No, Joe, think you got it wrong. Bush is just doing what he bleieves it best for our country but the dems DO NOT GET IT. THEY HAVE WANTED TO CUT AND RUN FOR AGES, they are WIMPS who don’t know how to FIGHT WARS —- PERIOD, but this lady wants our troops home with enough left in the area to clean up messes and kick random ass every now and then but again, the DEMS DON’T GET IT —THEY NEVER HAVE AND NEVER WILL.

Interesting post and comments. Rick has certainly been critical of the war and the politics/handling of same for a long time now. He reminds me of another guy who was very pessimistic starting around 18 months ago, Michael Yon. But I would encourage everyone here to read his recent reportage. He is becoming more optimistic for a host of reasons. The Iraqi military is beginning to step up, for one. Also, the people seem to realize that their fate is between the tender mercies of al Qaeda or the US. And they are beginning to side with the US.

While his reporting is certainly subjective and not dispositive, I think we are beginning to turn the tide there. Sure, the Iraqi politicians suck. Newsflash, they’re politicians and they suck. So do most of ours, btw. If the people of Iraq are starting to get it, the politicians should fall into line. If they don’t, well then we should talk of pulling out.

I, like Yon, am becoming cautiously optimistic for the first time in about a year. And I really don’t care how it plays out domestically in the US. If we can bring a modicum of stability, then it is worth the effort thus far. A pullout can only be viewed as an AQ victory, the consequences of which would be disastrous.

If AQ is not on the ropes at the moment then how to explain the most recent ramblings of Zawahiri? I’m not trying to change Rick’s mind, but would encourage a reexamination (if you’ve already done so, then disregard). We can leave Iraq tomorrow, but make no mistake, we’ll end up there again, probably within 5 years. And we’ll be reactive rather than pro-active. I hope I’m wrong but recent history suggests otherwise.

30

mannning Said:
9:08 pm

There is one factor that few have seemed to given any weight to so far. That is the Iranian situation. I am convinced that we are very serious about preventing Iran from having nuclear weapons. I am also convinced that we will attack Iran before the end of Spring, 2008, if diplomacy and sanctions, or internal strife do not cause the Iranians to cave in to UN demands. The most probable attack will be by air, not a ground invasion, in the first instance.

In this attack, we will have to take out many sites, including communications, command and control, air defense, and airfields and aircraft, before we can fully exploit our heavy lift B-1, B-2 and B-52 assets over Iran. There will most likely be significant collateral damage to other Iranian assets as well, simply because they have located much of their nuclear and defensive capabilities near non-military installations, homes, and businesses.

Iran will declare war in this event, I am virtually certain, and will activate their military and their sleeper cells to do damage to us, all around the globe. I am sure that they will move into Iraq openly with their army as well as more covertly with heavy support to the insurgents. Syria may enter the fray as well, causing us to defend ourselves on two fronts.

My point here is that we cannot draw down our forces in Iraq if we are going to attack Iran next year. I believe that the urgency that many in congress see in crippling the Iraqi effort is really directed at the administration to stop it from attacking Iran, and perhaps massively widening the Mid East war. In fact, we should seriously augment our forces in Iraq if the plan is to hit Iran, as I suspect we will.

So, in my opinion, the crux of the situation lies in the events in Iran that accept or deny the UN resolutions regarding cessation of their nuclear activities before 2008 is well along.

If one has a diabolical streak, one could also speculate that Bush/Chaney might half heartedly accept the draw down, begin to execute it, and then, in a surprise move, let the air forces loose on Iran. This would create a crisis in Iraq for our forces there, and would ensure that significant reinforcements would be sent in haste by airlift and sea lift to save our Iraq based troops from disaster.

F4tR,
Thanks. There’s one thing I’d like to amend, the part about not wanting to change Rick’s mind regarding Iraq. I’d love to come back and find that he’s changed his mind due to an improved outlook in theatre. I don’t expect that anytime soon, but one can hope.

33

leo Said:
8:24 am

to manning, the warrior who longs for the war with Iran:

What about the aftermath of such an assault on Iran?
F.e. the MidEast oil shipping: Will the gas price in USA surge to 10 Dollars a gallon?
You want to sell to the people this war against Iran. Ok: But don’t hide likely side effects like this!
And then: What will happen to US and global economy after a tripling of the barrel price?
What will happen to the Dollar?
You Americans risk your very neck when you will attack Iran – because of the economical side effects of this war.

What will happen in Iraq?
The Shiites will be on Iran’s side, turn against the US troops there. Cut the supply lines, probably. (So maybe it would be better to reduce the troops there, so that the smaller rest can still be supplied sufficiently in their bases from the air ...). US will have to ally with the Baathists and some Sunni Salafists … just those who plant all these IEDs today … and establish a new Sunni dictator in Iraq?

What will happen in Iran during and after the assault on Iran?
There is a considerable part of Iranians who dislike the present Mullah regime, and who would prefer a more secular and liberal policy. But these people are nationalists, too, they love their country, and they will be coerced to side with the radicals, the Mullah regime – just to defend their home, their nation. The Iranians will rally around their leadership and radicalize. And find ways to revenge. (And, manning, you have learnt how vulnerable your power is to asymmetric strategies!)

What will happen with US standing among the peoples and governments in the world?
It will continue to deteriorate. To a breaking point. And that will become costly, manning. You cannot go it alone successfully! Don’t overestimate your strength, your power.

What will happen in the USA, in terms of support of this war with Iran?
First, I suppose a surge in patriotic enthusiam and support for the government. Maybe long enough and intense enough so that a Republican candidate can profit in the election 2008.
But then, with all the negative effects of this escalation in the MidEast: Americans will demand to stop this fatal MidEast interventionism – if it still can be stopped.

That will be the ultimate question. Can the spiral into global desaster be stopped?

You may not think of a nightmare following the assault on Iran, manning.
But why do you not?

(I am German, live in Munich.)

34

mannning Said:
9:31 pm

Joe H. You preempted my next post very nicely. It is obvious that the aftermath of an attack on Iran must be thought through. Your idea that I am selling such a war is interesting. I wonder where you got that? I deal in situations, capabilities, and probable directions based on the positions of our and their leaders, and not selling a war. That is ridiculous. Both Bush and Cheney have stated clearly and definitively, for instance, that we will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapon capability.

The first reaction I have is that Iranian oil will be shut off for some time. (We are headed to a 100 dollar per barrel of oil now regardless.) This will make our huge shale oil deposits viable economically, so that source will be more rapidly exploited. It will also push our technologists to cut our need for oil by a significant half within 5 to 10 years. Our known oil reserves will be further exploited as well given this impetus. It turns out that the US does not buy oil from Iran in any event. The price of oil will undoubtedly stabilize within 4 to 6 months after the end of the battles, perhaps a year at the outside, to a more reasonable level as Iran oil comes back on line, and we permit it to flow.

The situation in Iran will be chaotic at best. They are currently struggling with an extremely low economy, and with their oil revenues totally cut off, there will be stagnation. Iran does not have refinery capability, so they will be using primitive means of transport rather quickly, and they will not be able to mount a major mobile battle.

While many Iranians will rally to the nation, it is perhaps quite overdone that they will be steadfast to the Mullahs in the face of no food, no gasoline and auto use, and no electrical power, all because of their state policies of seeking nuclear weapons. A welcome result might well be the drying up of funds for terrorist operations and support of Hamas and Hisbollah.

Once we have eliminated as much of the nuclear threat as we can find, and neutralized the Iranians ability to fight in sustained combat, we would most likely cease fire. We would not try to take Iran, nor would we try to help reconstruct it.
So there they would be in the sand, sans army, sans nuclear weapons, sans gasoline, sans revenue, and hopefully, sans Mullahs sooner or later.

Once the gasoline and diesel fuel has run out or been destroyed, their army becomes strictly foot soldiers in a vast sandpile, up against a fully mechanized
and well-supplied army, and a dominant air force. I would not like to bet on their chances.

Nuclear proliferation is the issue here. The nightmare of not only Pakistan and North Korea, but also Iran having nuclear weapons and the means for their delivery must be prevented or neutralized, or we will have a mega disaster in the West sooner or later. I will take their President’s words to be their truth. They intend to destroy Israel and the US. This is the gauntlet they have laid down.

It is not pleasant to contemplate our role here in the US, but with Europe a puny
partner from both force capability and willingness to step up to the problem aspects, there is no one else that can do the deeds necessary. The EU could have generated the military power needed, but they have not, and are now unwilling to do so. Oh, they are very willing to take moral positions that such should not happen. We had our appeasers and our jellyfish too in the US—and still have, for that matter.

The alternatives are few: there has been over four years of diplomacy; there is a round of sanctions now, and we all know how well those work; and there is only gamesmanship from Iran to keep the ball in the air as long as possible. Their time is running out.

Sadly, the world comes to opinions based on poor reading of the facts and careful reading of the propaganda spewing from the other side. But such actions as are contemplated must be carried out if catastrophe is to be avoided, no matter what world opinion comes to. This is not a voting situation, and poor world opinion not only comes to those with power to act, but also to those who see the need to act, and who do in fact act on behalf of the rest of the people. That is the way it is.
We will simply have to live with it.

The US has been fighting in Iraq with far too few troops for a long time, and they have been limited in how they could be used until lately. They have not been used to smother, cover, seize and hold, but to foray and raid in predictable ways. Not good. Today it appears to be going better, but still without sufficient troops. That may be corrected in the near term.

The US could, should it want to, raise an armed force of 10 to 15 million men and put many of them in the Middle East for the next 5 or 10 years, together with the combat weapons and vehicles they would need. Not that I am recommending it, but simply to illustrate what we are capable of doing. Yes, and at a great cost. Still, it would not seriously hurt our stupendously large economy.

Politically, however, it seems that the will to win, the willingness to go the extra distance, and to stay the course, or whatever aphorism you want, has been sapped from many of our people. Something has gone out of the spirit we have had since our founding. Perhaps it is the soft life we have become used to, or the guns and butter capability we have, or perhaps it is the siren call of pacifism, or even the growth of cowardliness and frustration in some of our people, or maybe all of these things, I do not know. Americans are impatient for results, and they petulantly rebel if they don’t see results real soon. So the short span of support for war may well do us in again. We will have to live with that too, and even plan for it.

Just maybe, however, all it takes in one swift kick in the butt to our collective rears to get us going as we have done in the past. Apparently, OBL knows this well about us, as he has substantially left the US itself alone since 9/11.

[...] What none of these wingers ever ask is how much more can the US do and how much longer can they do it. The answers – not much and not much longer. The troops are doing everything they have been asked to do but with multiple deployments and 15 month deployments they are exhausted both in body and spirit. I was in the military from 1968 to 1971. You knew you were going to Vietnam once – for 12 months unless you volunteered to go again. You knew you were going to be able to leave the military after 2 or 3 years, no stop loss. That kept the moral up and I can’t imagine what the moral must be in the military now. So how many troops would have to stay for how long to make any improvement in the situation? The reality is Iraq is no closer to a functional government now than it was that famous “purple finger” election three years ago. In fact the situation has continued to deteriorate since then. Rick Moran has a good post that subject, SUCCESS IN A VACUUM. Although I question the claims of any long term military success ne does spell out the total failure of the Iraqis to form a government. The military successes weâ€™ve had are taking place in a political vacuum. The government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki continues to wallow in sectarianism, incompetence, corruption, and a curious lethargy when it comes to addressing the issues that absolutely must be addressed if Iraq is to have a chance at internal peace. To wit: [...]

37

leo Said:
3:54 am

Thank you for your thoughtful answer, manning.

There are four things I would like to address:

1

What will happen if the Iranians will manage to shut down all the oil traffic in the Persian Gulf?
I don’t know whether they will be able to do that, but when you see how difficult it was for the Israelis in the last Lebanon war to take out all the missile launchers … There may be no more tankers going any more through the Persian Gulf. What then? ALL Mideast oil is shut down then! And THAT would have a nightmarish effect, manning!

2

The Chinese buy much of their oil in Iran. So the Chinese may not accept a shutdown of Iranian oil. They might go to press on the USA - and thanks to the vast Dollar reserves they hold and to some dependence of the USA to get enough credit money from China for their budget they may have some leverage here …
Most of all when all the world will intensify the pressure on the USA to stop the assault immediately.
Moreover, I suppose the more and more negative standing of the USA in the Arab and Muslim world might become a chance for China to establish herself as the future protector of the MidEast oil – replacing the USA.
(That is a long term danger. I wonder when it will start to play a role in US strategic design: The West will have to COURT the Arab people sooner or later to avoid that they will turn to China!)

3

Like you I assume that the nuclear ambitions of Iran go farther than having nuclear energy. But I do not think that a nuclear Iran is so much of a danger. Nuclear weapons are only useful for defense – at least as long as there is the capability of the other side to strike back. And this is the case here. Israel is said to have 200 or so nuclear bombs, and then there still is the USA arsenal. So why should Iran commit suicide and strike first?
The advantage of nuclear weapons for Iran is: They will be able to deter better any attack on their territory.
So, whatever they – I do not mean Iran, I mean the Mullah regime of Iran – might like to achieve concerning Israel: they will not be willing to wipe it out with nuclear weapons, because of the consequences.
My preference here is: Detente with the Mullah regime, and patience. Sooner or later the secular part of the nation will prevail, and then we will have a good ally over there.
If we bomb them, we will transfer the whole nation in arch enemies, and stabilize the Theocratic powers in Iran.

4

Of course the USA could go back to the draft. But I am quite sure that the voters will not allow it. There is no real readiness to much sacrifice concerning the MidEast. US government and media up to now were hardly willing to explain the US voters the strategic importance of the area and its ressources – so there is not enough insight to understand that for US interests it might be necessary to have the draft again and to double or triple the army.
Therefore, manning, I would suggest we count that in and make our strategic plans according to the limited numbers of active soldiers available right now.
And they are under strain already – the US army could need a break to recover, I suppose.

All in all, I recommend more multilateral US politics,
and one that accepts the limits of the army and the limits of the use of weapons to achieve the strategic aims,
and accordingly a more modest approach to what can be achieved.

38

mannning Said:
12:30 pm

I likewise appreciate your voice of moderation. After all, it may well be the course of action we take after the elections of 2008. A draft, for example totally depends on the Congress to vote it back, and our current passives will not go along. I also agree with your assessment of the lack of understanding our public has of the importance of ME oil to the world, ourselves included. And, I agree with the importance of
China to this issue, but would add Russia as well.

This adds to the complexity of the situation mightily. The one possible change, therefore, could be allowing the sale of oil to China, or Russia, but not allowing the import of refined products, if even that is possible, considering the pipeline developments underway between Russia, Iran, and eventually China. There are undoubtedly great risks in this factor.

As to the shutdown of the Gulf by Iran, I have two reactions. It cannot be total, since they have to sell their oil. but if they try that, we can interdict their vessels. So, no Iranian oil to market. The second reaction is that the US Navy would strive to put missile launch sites out of action by air attack, and there would be special forces actions on the ground to find, fix, and destroy them.

39

mannning Said:
1:24 pm

I likewise appreciate your voice of moderation. After all, it may well be the course of action we take after the elections of 2008. A draft, for example totally depends on the Congress to vote it back, and our current passives will not go along. I also agree with your assessment of the lack of understanding our public has of the importance of ME oil to the world, ourselves included. And, I agree with the importance of
China to this issue, but would add Russia as well.

This adds to the complexity of the situation mightily. The one possible change, therefore, could be allowing the sale of oil to China, or Russia, but not allowing the import of refined products, if even that is possible, considering the pipeline developments underway between Russia, Iran, and eventually China. There are undoubtedly great risks in this factor.

As to the shutdown of the Gulf by Iran, I have two reactions. It cannot be total, since they have to sell their oil. but if they try that, we can interdict their vessels. So, no Iranian oil to market. The second reaction is that the US Navy would strive to put Iranian missile launch sites out of action by air attack, and there would be special forces actions on the ground to find, fix, and destroy them as well.
So in my opinion, for them to close the gulf would be to either deny themselves revenue, or to expose their weapons systems to full precision-weapon attack. Their choice.

The threat we see from the Iranian nuclear weapons developments is quite clear. Beyond acting as a defensive shield for Iran, such weapons would be eagerly received by AQ, passed to them in secret by Iran. This is entirely in accord with the Iranian support for terrorist organizations worldwide, and gives them a denial capability in case of AQ use of such weapons on us. One must admit the horror of an AQ armed with nukes. It would put our major cities under the threat of total destruction. (We may see this anyway if Pakistan turns around, which is yet another major issue.)

The mindset of Mullahs is not something I would bet on to be rational, either. We made the mistake of ignoring the threats of OBL, and got death and destruction for our lack of attention. Likewise, the collective mindset of the Iranian population is not exactly what I would want to rely upon to help the peace process in the ME.

We have practiced a multilateral approach to Iran, and to the NK as well, for over 4 years. We stood aside (as the bad boy)to allow the UK, Germany, and France(as the good boys) to attempt to solve the nuclear question in Iran. They have produced exactly one thing—sufficient delay and obscurantism for the Iranians to proceed at great speed to produce weapon grade material. When do we stop talking while allowing the Iranians to complete a cache of nuclear bombs for use by AQ?

As I said in my earlier post,perhaps obscurely,significant augmentation of the forces is not politically possible as things stand. It will require far more provocation than we have seen so far to open the closed minds we have here and elsewhere. We will have to wait, perhaps, for the loss of one or two of our cities, and a million of our citizens, before we will respond adequately.

Unless, of course, Bush and Cheney live up to their threats, which places us back to the beginning of this discussion.

The Iranian regime is Shiite, it neither supports the Sunni resurgency in Iraq nor would it support in any way their lethal Sunnite enemy AlQaeda – themselves sworn adversaries of all Shiite heretics.

AlQaeda wages a cruel civil war against Iraqi Shiism.

Iran helped to destroy the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

The Shiite regime in Iran would prefer a compromise with the USA to any alliance and compromise with AlQaeda.

When some US spokesmen recently pointed to Iranian delivery to Sunni IEDs this is – I infer – mere US propaganda: preparation of the assault on Iraq.

Iran does NOT help the Sunni resurgency in Iraq, instead it supports the Shiite allies of the USA there to prevail against the Sunni resurgents.

If the Sunni resurgency prevailed and reconquered Iraq, this would mean a severe defeat for Iran: a come-back of the arch-enemy.

Iran therefore has her interest on the side of a US-Shiite success against the Sunni (Baathist and Salafi) warriors. AFTER, only AFTER such a victory the Shiites could turn against the US occupation force.

In anticipation of a war with Iran the USA is already shifting support gradually toward some groups of the Sunni resurgency – provided they also fight against AlQaeda. That is what we see in Anbar province, in Baquba right now.

A good development, by the way. AlQaeda comes between three hammers, a Shiite, an American and a non-AlQaeda Sunni one.

But in case of a war with Iran USA will completely side with the Sunni Iraqis (Baathist and Salafi), I suppose … those who right now deploy most of the IEDs that kill US soldiers …

41

leo Said:
7:26 pm

a wrong – misleading – letter: The paragraph must end with an n.

“When some US spokesmen recently pointed to Iranian delivery to Sunni IEDs this is â€“ I infer â€“ mere US propaganda: preparation of the assault on IraN.”

42

mannning Said:
9:13 pm

You are right, leo, Iran would use some other proxy. Anyone would do, so how about Hamas. I have a sneaking feeling, however, that when it comes to striking Israel or the US, there might be considerable, but guarded, cooperation between the various sects, particularly within the US itself.

With the deep divisions that exist inside Iraq that we cannot heal, my idea was to disengage our troops to a large degree, but to still be there in numbers sufficient to the tasks I have stated previously, especially keeping bloodshed down between Sunni and Shiite, protecting the borders and oil., and defending ourselves. If there is to be a common government in Iraq, it will be formed by Iraqis, not the US, in my opinion, so they need the space and time to sort that out—or not. If such a joint government cannot be formed and cannot show success in managing the national situation, there will come a time for us to simply leave them to their fate, with due warning to them all.

I still believe that managing the oil revenue sharing and protecting the oil infrastructure is key for us, but this is not on, I believe, because we would then undercut the current Iraqi government completely and be back to square one, with loss of credibility. Unless, of course, we could persuade them that we would be an honest broker and distribute their revenue fairly to all, since they can’t seem to do it for themselves, and they do want us to stay around for a time…

Then comes the Iranian affair to the front, with some sort of shouting match kind of showdown with us over their potential nukes taking place, perhaps as early as August, or September, 07. What follows after that, will be up to Bush and Cheney.

First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… here are all the links submitted by members of the Watcher’s Council for this week’s vote. Council li…

First off… any spambots reading this should immediately go here, here, here, and here. Die spambots, die! And now… the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are High Noonan by Big Lizards, and In…

The winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are High Noonan by Big Lizards, and Interview With Todd Bensman by View From a Height. here is where you can find the full results of the vote. Here…...

And now… the winning entries in the Watcher’s Council vote for this week are High Noonan by Big Lizards, and Interview With Todd Bensman by View From a Height. Thanks to everyone for all the great entries this week… I’m…...